Health Committee on May 16th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'll call the meeting to order. We have a few members who are probably a little late, but we will proceed.

I want to start because we're going into clause-by-clause. We have some new members around the table, so initially I'll describe the process. I think it's important for us to understand that there is no intention, necessarily, to rush this piece of legislation. We were actually expecting witnesses today, if we could get them. The clerk has informed me that there are no witnesses, so there is no reason not to go clause by clause. We're hoping to get that looked after today.

To describe how clause-by-clause works, we want to examine every line of the bill, actually word by word, if we need to. The committee will vote on each clause in the bill, each amendment, the schedule, the preamble--if the bill has any of those--the title, and then finally on the bill as a whole. So we'll go through that process, hopefully, today.

I also want to apologize to Christiane Gagnon for the speed at which I've been speaking. I've committed to her to slow it down a bit and to make sure--and committee members can check me on this--that before we complete an action of any kind at the committee the interpretation is clear and we're clear on what the committee is actually doing. I apologize if it wasn't clear in the past, and we'll try to correct that.

Before we proceed, are there any questions about the process we're going through?

Christiane.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

I'd just like to...

I'm going to talk slowly so you can understand me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

You claim to be in no hurry to adopt the bill, but the process takes very little time. The bill was referred to the committee last week. If we do not hear from any witnesses...The witnesses needed to analyze the bill's context. Some were not able to travel on such short notice, since they are often busy wrapping up other matters. The process is fairly quick and we'll go ahead and adopt the bill anyway. That doesn't mean that we'll vote in favour of the proposed legislation, but we will go ahead with the clause by clause study.

First, however, there's something I'd like to say. We're opposed to the bill's underlying principle, for several reasons. It clearly infringes on areas under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has its own Health and Social Services Act and the preamble to the bill is virtually identical to the preamble of the Quebec legislation.

Mr. Charbonneau, the provincial opposition critic, queried the Minister of Health and Social Services about the bill. The Minister wasn't familiar with all of the particulars, but one things is clear: Mr. Couillard would oppose any strategy that would infringe upon fields of provincial jurisdiction and result in duplication, just as he did when regulations respecting assisted reproduction were enacted. This matter is currently before the Court of Appeal. In addition, the Minister has distanced himself from all national strategies respecting cancer, mental health and health promotion.

The concerns of the Bloc Québécois are similar to those of Quebec politicians. The bill sets out a number of federal initiatives. It opens the door to federal interference in the health field. It does not contain a special clause targeting Quebec. Nor are the federal government's intentions in terms of collaborating with other levels of government clearly defined.

For all of these reasons, we will be voting against this underlying principle, and hence, against the bill in general. The committee can now proceed with its clause by clause analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Fletcher.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a question on process. The Bloc member raised a lot of points that they raised in debate. I wonder if it's appropriate; I'd like to respond if this is the venue. Obviously, this bill doesn't infringe on provincial jurisdiction. The preamble clearly says that. Is this the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, to rebut to what the Bloc said?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I would suggest that we'll go through it clause by clause. We will vote on the bill as a whole. The Bloc can certainly voice their concerns with the bill in each of the processes. I think that's fair. It really comes down to the will of the committee collectively as to whether the bill carries and the clauses carry. So I don't think, on the global perspective--and I think that's what the rebuttal would be--it would be productive. I think we all understand their concerns. I actually believe their concerns are perhaps more with some of the regulations that might come out of the bill than actually what we're dealing with this morning. I think that can be dealt with in another way.

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Last year, Mr. Chairman, we debated and voted on Bill C-12 which dealt with quarantine provisions. The bill was also passed in the Senate and received Royal Assent. However, it has yet to be enacted. Why is that? At stake is a public health policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

If it went into royal assent, it would be law.

[A voice]

It's not in force.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's not in force yet?

I couldn't answer that. I don't know if there's anyone here.... Can the witnesses speak to that at all?

[Jane Allain, General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Health Agency of Canada]

It's not in force yet, you're correct.

It's a fact that the policy has not yet been implemented. An analysis was carried out, since certain regulatory powers could be enacted. Our plans are to finalize this study and then recommend that the act be enforced in the very near future. But first, officials also needed to be trained to enforce the new Quarantine Act. The training is currently being given and the act will be proclaimed shortly.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you. That was a very good question. Thank you for the information.

We're ready to proceed, then. We can do this in different ways, I understand. We can go clause by clause, if you prefer. We can group the clauses if we're comfortable with that. Seeing that we have no further witnesses and we have no amendments, we could do it collectively and group the clauses together. That's what I would suggest we do to save a lot of time and formality.

Do I have consent of the committee to proceed with doing it as a collective bill? Seeing no opposition, let's proceed in that way.

Shall clauses 2 to 24, inclusive, carry? All in favour? Opposed?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

We're opposed to these clauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

On division.

(Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Carried on division.

Shall the preamble carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

Opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Carried on division.

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

Opposed.